Well apart from,
- Advanced Stop Lines (ASL) for bikes
Dutch-style roundabouts
Green bridges
Shared space
Moderator: Site Management Team
Anymore ?
There are at least two reasons I can think of why ASLs might not be used in the real world as their installers had hoped. Firstly, if the road is not wide enough to fit a useable cycle path alongside the queueing motor traffic, then cyclists won't be able to go up the left and use the cycle box. (There may or may not be a marked cycle path, but if vehicles are stopped in it, it might as well not be there.)
In London, all the time. It stresses me out greatly as cyclists whizz past both sides of my car, perilously close to the mirrors and wings. Then distribute themselves across the carriageway and hold up the traffic once the lights change.Anymore ?
Hopefully not ! Has anybody ever had a cyclist ride up the inside and plonked down in the bike space ? It has never happened to me yet, and Crewe is one of the towns with a large cycling population.
So you are saying what is needed is; dedicated high quality cycle infrastructure that is prioritised over motor traffic so that cyclists have no reason to ride in the main carriageway being an inconvenient to motorists?
Yes, I’d much prefer dedicated cycle infrastructure that separated cars and bikes. Safer for both. Though I think the London obsession with modal shift to cycling is misguided. Electric / hydrogen buses and rail are, in my view, the way to go. I’d rather cycling be discouraged and money invested in bus / rail instead - accessible to all, professionally driven, and quicker.
Whilst the Dutch didn't actually 'invent' cycling infrastructure they certainly popularised it and have taken things forward in terms of design and ideas. As mentioned, this influence is probably most keenly felt in London. We know that cycling is good for short (typically up to 3mile/5km) trips. Given the right conditions (i.e. infrastructure) it can provide a good alternative to the car. I disagree that it needs to be discouraged, the UK spent years discouraging cycling to the detrimate of everyone. Few people seemed to understand what benefits could be obtained by investing in dedicated lanes (cleaner air, quieter streets, health and well being etc.) Ultimately, the ideas from the Netherlands did reach these shores and some infrastructure has been built. In comparison to buses and trains, we need to think about the costs. Think of Crossrail (Liz Line) mega project, state of the art, but very expensive. Buses too can have problems, I think the average occupancy rate throughout the day is only 6 people per bus and like trains they can be heavily subsidised. Here in Colchester the P&R service haemorrhages money. Cycling infra can play a part in this mix as it only costs a fraction of the above.magd1272 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 23:30Yes, I’d much prefer dedicated cycle infrastructure that separated cars and bikes. Safer for both. Though I think the London obsession with modal shift to cycling is misguided. Electric / hydrogen buses and rail are, in my view, the way to go. I’d rather cycling be discouraged and money invested in bus / rail instead - accessible to all, professionally driven, and quicker.
I would agree with this statement. Hans Monderman (the Dutch engineer who came up with the idea) certainly created a legacy which also stretched across the North Sea. As mentioned on other threads, shared space can work well where there is very little traffic, i.e. New Line in Brighton or Seven Dials in London. However, where it is implemented in high volume areas such as Ashford, I would argue the results are not that great. Motorised traffic still dominates and pedestrians are forced to the periphery. What's really needed in a big reduction in motorised traffic, rather than the 'gimmicky world' of shared space where everyone, in the eyes of the designers, frolics around in amongst cars, trucks and buses.Shared space is usually agreed now to be a bad thing...
The main reason that I am aware of for encouraging cyclists to use ASLs – apart from simply giving them the time-saving benefit of filtering past motor traffic – is to reduce the risk of cyclists being hit by drivers turning left who are unaware of the cyclist on their inside. Putting the cyclists in front of the cars means that you are less likely to have a cyclist filtering up the inside of the traffic as it moves across the junction.FosseWay wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 17:45Secondly, if the dynamics of the junction mean that it's more sensible as a cyclist to wait in line with the cars. Personally, I don't bother fighting to the front (presuming I can safely and legally do that) if I'm not going to gain by it. In other words, if I'm going to get through the next green from where I currently am, there's no point putting myself in front of a bunch of cars that are then going to overtake me again. I get in their way and they put me at risk by passing, for no obvious gain to anyone. On the other hand, if the queue is long enough that I'm not likely to get through on the next green, then if the space/lane markings/other vehicles' positions allow, I will move further up.
At some junctions, there just isn't enough traffic all/some of the time to make you have to wait through more than one red phase. At these, I'd argue that ASLs are a bit superfluous.
(More generally, I'm not a huge fan of ASLs. Even if I do filter/use the cycle lane to pass queuing traffic so I get to use the next available green, I will generally do so only to the extent I need to in order to achieve that aim. I don't need to be at the front, just near enough the front to get through before it goes amber. I will generally stop at a point where the stationary traffic gives me a bit of room, between not alongside vehicles, and where there's enough room for me and the car behind to move off without getting in each other's way. I just don't see the point of inviting cyclists to pass a load of traffic that is then going to have to overtake them again.)
We've spent generations - essentially all the time since Buchanan - disregarding cycling as a mode of transport and treating it as a hobby or leisure past time and making our roads and streets hostile to cyclists and pedestrians. At what point do we stop and think about what we have done and try and make amends; make our roads less hostile to those who happen to be outside motor vehicles? Your statement seems to suggest we compound our error and don't even bother?Conekicker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 20:41 Lots of ASL's around me. I've never seen a cyclist on any of the roads leading up to them, never mind a cyclist actually use one. A provision that should only be made if there is a need for it, NOT as a political gesture, as is too often the case.
Some parts of the country are not conducive to cycling. Other parts are.Debaser wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:35We've spent generations - essentially all the time since Buchanan - disregarding cycling as a mode of transport and treating it as a hobby or leisure past time and making our roads and streets hostile to cyclists and pedestrians. At what point do we stop and think about what we have done and try and make amends; make our roads less hostile to those who happen to be outside motor vehicles? Your statement seems to suggest we compound our error and don't even bother?Conekicker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 20:41 Lots of ASL's around me. I've never seen a cyclist on any of the roads leading up to them, never mind a cyclist actually use one. A provision that should only be made if there is a need for it, NOT as a political gesture, as is too often the case.
You seem to disregard the fact that our streets are much safer for cyclists and pedestrians than they were when cycling rates hit their peak in the UK and the Netherlands in the early 1950s. Next year we're probably going to get cars with mandatory 'soft' speed-limiters...is that not a step in the right direction?Debaser wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:35We've spent generations - essentially all the time since Buchanan - disregarding cycling as a mode of transport and treating it as a hobby or leisure past time and making our roads and streets hostile to cyclists and pedestrians. At what point do we stop and think about what we have done and try and make amends; make our roads less hostile to those who happen to be outside motor vehicles? Your statement seems to suggest we compound our error and don't even bother?
It depends if they've simply become 'safer' by the expedient of reduced numbers. As I alluded to, we have the safest roads in the World (and like to boast of it) - so long as you are the driver or passenger in a motor vehicle (which we almost always leave unsaid). If you are outside a motor vehicle your safety reduces, as does our league position when compared with other countries.Patrick Harper wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:52You seem to disregard the fact that our streets are much safer for cyclists and pedestrians than they were when cycling rates hit their peak in the UK and the Netherlands in the early 1950s. Next year we're probably going to get cars with mandatory 'soft' speed-limiters...is that not a step in the right direction?Debaser wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:35We've spent generations - essentially all the time since Buchanan - disregarding cycling as a mode of transport and treating it as a hobby or leisure past time and making our roads and streets hostile to cyclists and pedestrians. At what point do we stop and think about what we have done and try and make amends; make our roads less hostile to those who happen to be outside motor vehicles? Your statement seems to suggest we compound our error and don't even bother?
Leeds and Bradford might disagree with you there. Perhaps Sheffield needs to embrace ebikes. They make hills a lot easier.Conekicker wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:54Some parts of the country are not conducive to cycling. Other parts are.Debaser wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:35We've spent generations - essentially all the time since Buchanan - disregarding cycling as a mode of transport and treating it as a hobby or leisure past time and making our roads and streets hostile to cyclists and pedestrians. At what point do we stop and think about what we have done and try and make amends; make our roads less hostile to those who happen to be outside motor vehicles? Your statement seems to suggest we compound our error and don't even bother?Conekicker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 20:41 Lots of ASL's around me. I've never seen a cyclist on any of the roads leading up to them, never mind a cyclist actually use one. A provision that should only be made if there is a need for it, NOT as a political gesture, as is too often the case.